1951-02-21

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the request made yesterday I should like to make a short statement on Canada's contribution to the Colombo plan.
A little over a year ago the foreign ministers of the commonwealth countries met in Colombo, Ceylon, to consider many of the urgent political and economic problems then facing Asia. Out of their discussions a consultative committee on south and southeast Asia was created which was charged with examining economic problems of the area and preparing appropriate recommendations. This committee, which drew its original membership from seven countries, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Canada, met in Sydney, Australia, last May and in London last September. Its most recent meeting in Colombo, Ceylon, ended yesterday.
The United States, with unanimous agreement of the seven original members, recently joined the consultative committee. In announcing his government's acceptance of this invitation, the Secretary of State in Washington said on January 24 of this year that it afforded his country the opportunity "for further co-operation with the countries of south and southeast Asia in their efforts toward economic and social development". Representatives of the following non-commonwealth countries also attended the recent meeting in Colombo: Burma, Cambodia, Viet Nam, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand.
During 1950, when the United States was continuing to carry such a heavy burden of foreign aid, it was, I think, appropriate that the commonwealth countries should examine together some of the pressing economic problems of south and southeast Asia. These were not new problems, but they were ones to which the free world had not previously given adequate attention. The commonwealth countries did good work, therefore, in bringing together in one report an analysis of the needs of the countries which comprise four-fifths of the area of south and southeast Asia.
Since the plan was drawn up, there have already been significant economic changes which are bound to affect its progress, at least in its initial stages. The burden of rearmament which the western countries have been forced to take on is having major economic consequences. The prices of many of the raw materials produced in south and southeast Asia have gone up sharply. This advantage to producers in the area has been offset to some extent by the rising cost of the goods which the Asian countries must import. Even more serious are the difficulties in obtaining delivery of critically needed goods. Most regrettable, there has been a serious falling off in India's food supply owing to drought in some regions, floods in others and locusts in still others. This has imposed a very real human and economic problem upon India.
The Colombo plan calls for a capital development program in commonwealth countries of south and southeast Asia totalling about $5 billion over a six-year period starting this year. Of this $5 billion it is expected that about $2 billion will be raised internally and about $3 billion will come from external sources. Private capital is one source, though in the present international situation it cannot be as important as it should be. We also hope that the international bank will be another source for financing some of the larger projects. So far as government contributions are concerned, the United Kingdom has announced that its contribution over the six-year period will take the form of sterling balance releases, at a high and fixed rate, grants for colonial development, and loans floated in London, amounting to well over 300 million pounds sterling, or more than 900 million Canadian dollars for the six years. Australia has announced that it will provide 7 million pounds sterling, which is nearly 21 million Canadian dollars in the first year, and that over the six-year period its contribution will be not less than 25 million pounds sterling, that is nearly 75 million Canadian dollars.
The Canadian government has been giving very serious consideration to the course of action which should be recommended to parliament. We have been conscious that Canadians, as individuals-and this has been clearly reflected in the press from one end

The Colombo Plan
of the country to the other-wish to contribute to the success of this plan. This desire of the people of Canada to extend assistance has also been clearly shown in the debate on the speech from the throne. It was reflected by the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) when he expressed his confidence that members of the house would support all practical measures which will bring hope and encouragement to those who are in such great distress in so many parts of the world. It was reflected also in the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), when he called the Colombo plan the most imaginative ever adopted by the commonwealth countries.
The government therefore authorized Mr. David Johnson, our high commissioner in Pakistan and our delegate to the recent meeting of the consultative committee, to state that the Canadian government would ask parliament to appropriate $25 million as its contribution to the first year of the plan, provided it was clear that other contributing countries would be making appropriate contributions so that the broad objectives of the Colombo plan might be realized.
The United States representative at the Colombo meeting said that his government welcomed the initiative of the countries participating in the Colombo plan; that the plan itself appeared to offer a basis for genuine economic progress, and that the United States intended to co-ordinate to the greatest extent possible the program it had undertaken or might undertake in the area with those programs under the Colombo plan.
I should also inform the house that we are immediately opening discussions with the Indian government to see whether they would wish that some of the funds we provide this year under the Colombo plan should be spent on Canadian wheat for their famine-stricken country. As yet we do not know exactly what types of wheat, available in Canada, will be of use to India; nor, of course, do we know what next year's crop will be. However, it is our hope that some wheat may be provided to the government of India in connection with the plan. This wheat, I imagine, would be sold by the Indian government to the people of India under its rationing system, where possible, and the money so raised could then be devoted to capital developments. In the Colombo report it is clearly recognized, especially in the case of India, that imports of food as well as imports of capital goods may serve in attaining the objectives of the plan. At the same time that we open discussions

with the Indian authorities we shall open parallel discussions with the Pakistan authorities.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might read to the house the last sentence of the Colombo report, which summarizes so eloquently our hopes for the success of the Colombo plan:
In a world racked by schism and confusion it is doubtful whether free men can long afford to leave undeveloped and imprisoned in poverty the human resources of the countries of south and southeast Asia which could help so greatly, not only to restore the world's prosperity, but also to redress its confusion and enrich the lives of all men everywhere.


Mr. Coldwell:: If I may ask the minister a short question, do I understand that our contribution is not contingent upon a substantial financial contribution by the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to begin a discussion of this matter at this time. In reply to the hon. gentleman I would merely say that to carry out the original plan in its entirety, a contribution from the United States will be essential. The contribution we shall ask parliament to make is not in a sense conditional upon anything; but if the plan could not be carried out in its entirety, naturally we would have to re-examine the whole position.


Mr. Higgins:: May I ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister has stated that he will ask parliament to approve the contribution of this sum of money. In the circumstances I think questions should be withheld until that legislation is brought down.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


Mr. Fernand Viau (Si. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, since the orders of the day may not be called, with the consent of the house I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce when the report of the Red river valley diking board, outlining the works completed or to be completed in the Red river valley for the protection of that area, including Winnipeg and St. Boniface, which were flooded in the spring of 1950, will be tabled.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The report is now in the hands of the printer, and I hope it can be tabled within a week or two.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Isabella Potts Younger Ayton.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 26, for the relief of Margaret Alice McDermid Jones.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Jacqueline Moquin Verner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Ruth Cher-nofsky Shaffer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Florence Lachovitz Michael.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Eugenia Jean Diakonuk Cuthbertson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Ruth Moffatt Bell Lansing.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Kurt Roberts, otherwise known as Kurt Rosenbaum..-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Margaret Stevenson Erskine Withenshaw.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Cecile Duguay Quenneville.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Margarette Marie Hyduk Towstuk.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Joseph Maurice Fernando Lemieux.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Donald Benedict Cullen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Valeda Ardell Derick Thorley.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Cresiohl:: 1.	Has the government been consulted about the suspension of the sentences of nazi criminals as announced by United States authorities in Germany? If so, what was the government's attitude?
2.	Can the government inform this house whether the suspension of the sentences imposed on nazi criminals is part of General Eisenhower's "Let bygones be bygones" policy, and was the government consulted prior to the general's formation of such policy?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.	(a) No; (b) answered by (a).
2.	(a) No; (b) no.
Supplementary information:
1.	Under the London agreement of March, 1945, the United Kingdom, United States, France, and the U.S.S.R. set up a special international military tribunal (which later sat at Nuremberg) to deal with major war crimes. The jurisdiction of the tribunal extended to cases where the apprehension and trial of the offender required international co-operation.
2.	The creation of the special tribunal at Nuremberg did not affect the jurisdiction of national military courts over offences of a local character coming within the Red Cross conventions or within the normal military law
Questions
of the state or occupying power against whom the offence was perpetrated.
3.	The courts of individual countries have no independent power to exercise clemency in the case of war criminals convicted by the international military tribunal at Nuremberg. Reduction or remission of sentences passed by that tribunal is a matter for quadri-partite decision. The United States has not taken any initiative in seeking a review of decisions of the international military tribunal.
4.	Any action which the United States has taken in response to pleas for clemency has been confined to prisoners convicted by United States military courts, six of which were located at Nuremberg. Without reference to other occupying powers the United States is free to take such independent action by virtue of control council law No. 10 of December 20, 1947, under the authority of which national military courts were set up.


MARITIME MARSHLAND REHABILITATION
Mr. Nowlan:: On what bodies of dikelands in the province of Nova Scotia were moneys expended, pursuant to the provisions of the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, and how much money was expended on each of such bodies during (a) the period from April 1, 1949, to March 31, 1950; (b) the period from April 1, 1950, to December 31, 1950?


Mr. McCubbin:: (a)	Marsh body-Expenditures 1949-50: Annapolis valley project, $8,412.16; Comeau marsh, $23,024.07; Dentiballis, $297.00; Falmouth great dike, $291.67; Grand Pre marsh, $899.50; Queen Anne marsh body, $361.61; Truro dikeland park, $307.50.
(b)	Marsh body-Expenditures April 1, 1950 to December 31, 1950: Advocate, $416.05; Allan river, $634.70; Amherst point $34,705.54; Annapolis town, $332.00; Antigonish, $127.00; Barronsfield, $720.20; Castle Frederick, $449.30; Dentiballis, $41,483.17; Dugau marsh, $17,994.71; Falmouth great dike, $37,305.27; Falmouth village, $1,497.87; Grand Pre marsh, $62,226.47; Habitant, $3,249.49; Mount Anne, $921.45; Moschelle, $900.30; Noel shore, $650.25; Newport town, $382.70; Queen Anne marsh body $52,409.58; River Hebert, $389.95; Ryerson, $69.79; Saulnierville marsh, $6,380.78; Selma marsh body, $39.60; Scotch village, $124.85; Truro dikeland park, $39,221.29; Upper Belleisle, $150.80; Upper Nappan, $307.11; Victoria diamond jubilee, $35,751.85; Woodworth. $88.00.

Questions
benzene from Canadian coal or coke	2. Answered by No. 1.


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Has the dominion coal board investigated the possibilities of converting coal to an oil pipe-line fuel?
2.	If so (ai) with what success; (b) in what section of Canada were experiments tried?
3.	What quantity, if any, of benzene is derived from Canadian coal or coke?
4.	What quantity of benzene was used during the year 1950 in the manufacture of Canadian synthetic rubber?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	No. Governmental technical investigations of this nature would be undertaken by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
3.	6,540,255 imperial gallons in the calendar year 1949.
4.	2,630,000 imperial gallons.


WHEAT BOARD ACCOUNTS
Mr. Wright:: 1.	What are the amounts of uncashed cheques remaining in the hands of the wheat board under the various accounts handled by that board from 1940 to date?
2.	What are the amounts unclaimed for other reasons in these accounts?
3.	What are the statutory or other regulations governing the disposal of these accounts?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Outstanding cheques uncashed in the hands of producers, as at 31st July 1950, in the various wheat board accounts were as follows:
Wheat-western division:
1940 crop account-final payment	 $ 17,689 44
1941	crop account-final payment	
8,984	561942	crop account-final payment	
10,840	711943	crop account-final payment	
45,749	121944	crop account-final payment	
109,053	39
1945-49 pool account:
10c. adjustment payment, authorized by order in council P. C. 3222 of 30th
July 1946	 20,892	15
20c. adjustment payment, authorized by order in council P. C. 1289 of 25th
March 1948	 176,070	41
20c. adjustment payment, authorized by order in council P. C. 919 of 24th
February 1949	 717,504	49
1,106,784 27
Emergency wheat receipts:
1945	crop	
$ 3,136 651946	crop	
58,016	21	61,152	86
Wheat

eastern division:
1944	Ontario wheat equalization	fund	order in council P. C.	1638	2,794	801945	Ontario wheat equalization	fund	order in council P. C.	4646	2,858	72	5,653	52Total wheat	
1,173,590 65
Coarse grains-western division:
1942	crop oats and barley equalization funds-P. C. 4450	
4,554	741943	crop oats equalization fund-P. C. 4450 and 8898	
15,197	361944	crop barley equalization fund-P. C. 5998	
13,690	451946	crop oats equalization fund-P. C. 3222 and 1292	
13,852	611947	crop oats and barley adjustment payment-P.C. 3375	
8,746	861947	crop oats and barley equalization funds-P.C. 1891 and5207	
73,965 441946	crop barley adjustment payment-P. C. 1292	
6,387	701947	crop flaxseed adjustment payment-P. C. 829	
3,828	04 140,223	20Total outstanding cheques	
$1,313,813 85

Questions
2.	Amounts due to producers for which participation certificates or other documentary evidence have not been surrendered to the wheat board as at July 31, 1950 are as follows.
1940	crop account-final payment
1941	crop account-final payment
1942	crop account-final payment
1943	crop account-final payment
1944	crop account-final payment
110,942 52 58,020 62 64,965 75 270,418 52 414,466 83
1945-49 pool account:
10c. adjustment payment, authorized by order in council, P. C. 3222 of
30th July 1946	[DOT][DOT]
20c. adjustment payment, authorized by order in council, P. C. 1289 of
25th March 1948	[DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT]"[DOT]
20c. adjustment payment, authorized by order in council, P. C. 919 of 24th February 1949	
124,966 83 1,167,706 16 2,257,767 80
1946 crop-emergency wheat receipts
4,469,255 03 26,518 23

Note* In reduction of the amounts shown as outstanding in (1) and (2) above payments were made by board amounting to $1,353,829.48 during the period 1st August, 1950 to to 31st December 1950.
3.	These accounts are operated under the Canadian Wheat Board Act and other regulations and are regarded as active accounts by the board. The board is continuously endeavouring to effect payment of moneys due to producers. See also preceding note.


NATIONAL DEFENCE HEADQUARTERS
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	How many officers of all forces are attached to, or stationed at national defence headquarters?
2.	How many non-commissioned ranks of all forces are attached to, or stationed at, national defence headquarters?
3.	How many civilians are attached to, or stationed at, national defence headquarters?


Mr. Blanchette:: Personnel stationed or
attached at national defence headquarters:
1	2	3	Officers	Non.-Com. Civilians	TotalRanks	Navy ...	.. 246	8	790	1,044Army ...	.. 418	598	651	1,667Air Force	. 351	209	294	854Adminis-	tration	.. 40	71	734	845DRB 	.. 14	1	252	267Total . ..	.. 1,069	887	2,721	4,677NEWFOUNDLAND	SALES TAX	COLLECTIONS


Gordon Francis Higgins: What amount has been collected from Newfoundland in sales tax since the date of union?


Mr. McCann:: The amount of sales tax
(domestic and importation) collected in Newfoundland since April 1949, to January 31, 1951, inclusive, is $3,379,998.42.


PURCHASE OF T.B. HOSPITAL PROPERTY IN WHITEHORSE
Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	Was the government involved in any way in the purchase of property in Whitehorse known as Log House?
2.	If so, for what purpose was the property purchased?
3.	From whom was it purchased?
4.	When was it purchased?
5.	What use is now being made of the property?
6.	Was a garage built on the property by the federal government?
7.	If so, what was the cost of such garage?
8.	Where are T.B. patients from Whitehorse now hospitalized?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	No.
2	to 5. Answered by No. 1.
6.	No.
7.	Answered by No. 6.
8.	This is the responsibility of the Yukon territorial government. However, it is understood that patients are hospitalized in the Charles Camsell hospital, Edmonton, and in hospitals of the governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba.


SHIPMENTS OF LIVE CATTLE TO THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Catherwood:: What was the total number of live cattle shipped to the United States in the years 1849 and 1950?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1949, 417,648; 1950, 456,718.

Questions


COST OF LIVING INDEX-PROTECTIVE FOODS
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Does the selection of goods and services used in computing the cost-of-living index, on the basis of 1935-1939 equalling 100, include an adequate amount of protective foods?
2.	What protective foods, and what quantities thereof, are thus included?
3.	Has the quantity of protective foods been altered to conform to modem health and nutritional standards? If so, in what respects and to what extent?
4.	What was the over-all cost-of-living index as at February 1, in each of the following years, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951?
5.	What was the food index as at February 1, in each of the following years, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951?


George James McIlraith: 

PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Does the federal government recognize any organizations of its employees as bargaining agents in the terms or spirit of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act?
2.	What steps are being taken by the government to provide its employees with the same facilities for negotiation with respect to working conditions as are provided for the employees of private corporations under the terms of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act?
3.	Are any labour-management committees operating in government departments?
4.	If so (a) how many; (b) in what departments, or sections or branches are such committees operating?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 1.	The answer to the question as drafted is no.
The civil service of Canada is carried on under laws enacted by parliament and is supervised by a commission set up by parliament and which reports to parliament. The commission and the government can and do receive representations from organizations of employees, but there is no process of collective bargaining in the sense in which that term is used in industry.
From the very nature of employment in the public service, there can be no bargaining agent for the nation comparable with the employer in industry who has at his disposal funds derived from payments for goods or services. The funds from which salaries are paid in the public service have to be voted by parliament and parliament alone can discharge that responsibility.
2.	The answer is that no steps are being taken because it is considered that the appropriate machinery for these purposes was set up by P.C. 3676 of May 16, 1944 which established the national joint council of the public service of Canada and the subsequent treasury board minute of March 8, 1945, approving the constitution of the council.
3	and 4. There is nothing which could properly be called a labour-management committee, but there is a departmental joint

council of the public service in the Department of Resources and Development and there are numerous staff associations in other departments who are concerned with and make representations on working conditions and welfare questions.



POSTAL SERVICE


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	By what means are the mails transported to and from Churchill, Manitoba?
2.	Is there a regular air service to and from Churchill?
3.	Has consideration been given to all-up mail service to and from Churchill?
4.	If so, what is the result of such consideration? If favourable, on what date will such service commence? If not, what are the reasons for not providing such service?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Rail.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	In view of the additional cost involved and the fact that Churchill enjoys railway mail service to the limit of through passenger train frequency, no action has been taken on the proposal to introduce all-up air mail service.



TRADE WITH THE WEST INDIES


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Did the Minister of Trade and Commerce within the past two years visit (a) points in the West Indies islands; (b) South America, in respect to trade agreements?
2.	If so, were new trade agreements arranged?
3.	Was a new agreement made in connection with the government steamship services to the different islands?
4.	Has a report been made in respect to these matters?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	No.
2.	A delegation of officials visited northern South America and was successful in arranging modi vivendi with Venezuela, Ecuador, and Costa Rica, whereby Canadian goods enter those markets under most-favourednation tariff rates.
3.	No.
4.	No.



BUTTER AND OLEOMARGARINE

Mr. Caiherwood:: 1.	How many pounds of (a) butter; (b) margarine, were consumed in Canada in the year 1950?
2.	What was the percentage of increase in the consumption of these commodities in comparison to the amount consumed in 1949?
Orders for Returns


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1.	(a) 323,083,000 pounds butter (including creamery, dairy and whey butter); (b) 93,648,000 pounds margarine.
2.	Percentage increase over 1949:-Butter, 2-5 per cent; margarine, 30-2 per cent.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


SEARCH AND RESCUE SERVICES


Mr. Smith (Queens-Shelburne):: 1.	What branches of the government departments participate in the search and rescue organization on the east coast?
2.	How many vessels of each department are available for this service?
3.	Are communication facilities with these vessels available at all times?
4.	Where is the co-ordination centre located?
5.	During the year 1950, in how many marine distress incidents did the co-ordination centre take part?
6.	How many searches, initiated by the co-ordination centre, were carried out by (a) R.C.A.F. aircraft; (b) government-owned vessels?



POSTAL SERVICE


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What points in the northern areas of Canada receive all-up mail service?
2.	What was the volume of mail for any recent period for which this information is available, to and from each of these points?
3.	What was the volume of mail for the same period to and from Churchill, Manitoba?



NAVAL SERVICE


Mr. McWilliam:: 1.	What are the rates of pay for naval depot ammunition workers and tradesmen at each of the four naval depots in Canada?
2.	What is the location of the largest of these depots?
3.	Is the same class of work performed in all four depots?
4.	If not, what is the difference in classification and rates of pay?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: Return tabled.



ARMED FORCES-SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE  RENTALS

Mr. Nowlan:: 1.	Has any increase in subsistence allowance been authorized to members of the armed forces of Canada?
2.	If so (a) on what date did such increase in subsistence allowances come into effect; (b) what was the amount authorized to each of the respective ranks of (i) the navy; (ii) the army; (iii) the air force?
3.	What proportion of each of the amounts referred to in 2(b), (i), (ii) and (iii) is taxable as income in the hands of the respective recipients?
4.	Has there been an increase in rental charged members of the armed forces of Canada occupying homes situated on army camps, naval establishments or air force stations?

Motions for Papers
5.	If so (a) on what date did such increase in rentals come into effect; (b) what was the amount of such increase in rental for each of the respective ranks of (i) the navy; (ii) the army; (iii) the air force?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: Return tabled.



NEWFOUNDLAND-ECONOMIC SURVEY   DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIES, ETC.

Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Ha9 any application been made by the government of Newfoundland for an economic survey with a view to determining what resources may profitably be developed, what new industries may be established or existing industries expanded, as provided by section 45, subsection 1 of the terms of union?
2.	Has the federal government made a special effort to collect and make available scientific data about the natural resources and economy of the province of Newfoundland in order to bring such information up to the standard obtaining for the other provinces of Canada, as provided by subsection 2 of section 45 of the terms of union?
3.	If so, what is the result of such effort?



FISHERIES-EMPLOYEES, P.E.I.-CATCH FOR YEARS 1949 AND 1950

Mr. Kickham:: 1.	What was the number of employees of the Department of Fisheries in the province of Prince Edward Island, including all personnel, male and female, in 1949 and 1950?
2.	What is the name of each employee employed in each of the three counties in 1949 and 1950?
3.	What was the total amount of pounds of all species and value of fish caught in each of the three counties for the years 1949 and 1950?


Mr. MacNaughi:: Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Proudfoot:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents in the possession of the Department of Public Works, exchanged between the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec and the federal government, concerning the proposal to build a bridge on the Ottawa river from Allumette island, Quebec and North Renfrew, Ontario.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to the passing of this motion with the usual reservation that the provinces will be consulted, and if they agree, the correspondence will be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, with the reservation made by the minister.



BONAVENTURE, QUE., FISHERMEN'S WHARF

Mr. Courtemanche:: For a copy of all payrolls and a statement of materials purchased in connection with the work done to the fishermen's wharf at Bonaventure, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, from April to June, 1950.



ST. CHARLES DE CAPLAN, QUE., WHARF

Henri Courtemanche: For a copy of all payrolls and a statement of materials purchased in connection with the repairs to the wharf of St. Charles de Caplan, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, during 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950.



ST. CHARLES DE CAPLAN, QUE., HARBOUR PROTECTION

Henri Courtemanche: For a copy of all payrolls and a statement of materials purchased in connection with the construction of protection work, during 1950, at the wharf of St. Charles de Caplan, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, in front of or in the vicinity of the Henri Leblanc property or Manoir St. Charles.



SOLDIER SETTLERS


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of giving clear titles to all soldier settlers of great war I who hold land under contract with the soldier settlement board.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the resolution standing in my name on the order paper, for possibly the sixteenth time in the past number of years, is one with which all members are familiar. On many occasions since coming to this house I have heard members of the government say that Canada will always honour her obligations. I have no argument whatever with that principle, and it has been carried out with perhaps a few exceptions, one of them in connection with the soldier settlers of world war I. A promise was made by the then prime minister of Canada, the late Sir Robert Borden, that certain things would be done for those men after they returned from overseas. This is the speech that was given to those men back in 1917:
You are men actually facing the enemy day and night. You are suffering greatly from fatigue, overstrain, and lack of rest. The marvel of it is that men could undergo such a strain without breaking: but you have never yet broken, and history will appreciate that in days to come.
You men are about to enter one of the most serious engagements that ever faced the Canadian corps. I cannot, at this moment, give any information as to where this attack will be staged, whether it will be successful or not ... it is to be borne in mind that it will not be an easy success . . . We feel confident that you will succeed where others failed: for you have never yet failed in anything you have set your hand to, as a Canadian corps.
You can go into this action feeling assured of this, and as the head of the government, I give you this assurance: that you need have no fear that the government and the country will fail to show just

appreciation of your service to the country and empire in what you are about to do and what you have already done.
The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of the people at home, and it will always be our endeavour to so guide the attitude of public opinion, that the country will support the government to prove to the returned man its just and due appreciation of the inestimable value of the services rendered to the country and empire; and that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died.
Mr. Speaker, I have read this into the record many times before, because I believe it is always necessary to have something on which to base your case. I believe we have sound grounds upon which to base our case, for giving clear title to the veterans of world war I who settled under the soldier settlement board. After the war these soldiers returned, and I understand that many of them congregated in the cities where there was no employment for them. The government of the day deemed it necessary to provide some of them with farms as a means of solving a portion of the unemployment across the country. As a result of that decision, legislation was passed in 1919 making provision for such loans to be advanced to these men as would enable them to buy farms.
As has been pointed out on several occasions, the move was one without precedence. It was a hastily improvised scheme, and was put into operation by men who had had no previous experience in that line. I am sorry to say that it caused a lot of unnecessary suffering and hardship to the men who made use of it. It may seem strange to us, but before any contracts were signed by those men the legislation provided that in any case where oil rights went with the land, those rights were to be taken away because the men were farmers and not miners or oil operators. In effect, to take away the right to the oil which was under the land amounted to the same thing as taking away buildings that were on the land. I feel that an injustice was done through that provision, which I believe was section 57 of the act.
In 1938 an attempt was made by this house to have those rights restored to the men to whom they properly belonged. The House of Commons, with very little discussion, passed legislation to that end, and it was sent on to the upper house. Some of the members up there who were not farmers thought it desirable to have the legislation sent to a committee. This committee reported that the legislation should be disallowed, and that was done. Thanks to the former 80709-35
Soldier Settlers
minister of veterans affairs, who is now the' Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), those rights have been restored to the veterans, and at least a part of the injustice has been removed.
As a result of the soldier settler legislation of 1919, some 25,017 veterans were settled on the land. They were given loans averaging $4,358.40 each, which came to a total amount of $109,034,331. The interest rate to begin with was far too high, particularly as applied to men who had gone overseas to fight our battles for us. Had it not been for their service, perhaps we would not be in control of that land today. The rate of interest set out in the bill was five per cent on current accounts. When it came to the time that the men could not make their payments, the interest rate was stepped up to seven per cent on arrears. We might compare that figure with the interest rate charged to veterans of the second world war, when provision was made for an interest rate of 3J per cent. Personally, I feel, as I have felt right along, that that interest rate is too high.
When these contracts were drawn up, it is not surprising to find that there was a stated sum to be paid by the settlers. In many cases they were charged far too much for their land, their livestock and their farm implements. Yet in spite of this fact, no provision was made for a guaranteed price for the products they grew or the stock they raised. At the time many of those contracts were entered into, wheat was selling at as high as $3 a bushel, and in some cases a little more; but before many years had passed, the price had slipped back to twenty cents a bushel. For milch cows, which most settlers had to have, they paid anywhere from $125 to $150 apiece; yet not many years later the price of those cows had dropped to anywhere from $10 to $15 per head. The settler paid $500 a team, and sometimes more, for horses that were aged and should have been turned out to pasture as being useless; within not many years they were selling for $50 or $60 per team. But in spite of this reduction in the price of the things the settler had to sell, the contract price still held good, and it was impossible for those men to make a living and to pay their debts. Realizing the impossible position these men were in, the government finally decided that they would reduce the amount of the original debt. Later, when that was found not to be enough, there was a cancellation of some of the interest. But in spite of that, during the years following 1929, when a man-made recession was brought about, the men continued to slip back and their debts continued

Soldier Settlers
to pile up. There was therefore not much advantage to be gained by these reductions and cancellations.
About 1934 or 1935 legislation was passed providing for a dollar-for-dollar concession on the payment of arrears. That would have been fine if everybody had had money. But everybody did not have money. In fact few had any money with which to take advantage of that offer; and by 1938 that legislation was discontinued. In 1939 we were still in the depression, and with 1939 came world war II. Many of those old soldier settlers who had been through the mud, the dirt and the suffering of the first war, because of their financial and economic conditions enlisted again in world war II; and many of them took their sons with them. The men who were left at home were those who were unable to go; and they got busy on the land, worked long hours and continued to produce food for Canadians and some for shipment overseas. Many of them also went to the munitions factories and, where their health permitted them to do so, worked until the end of the war. During that time there was shameful treatment of the families remaining on the land, of the men who had gone overseas or had enlisted in the services.
I have here a copy of sessional paper 194A, P.C. 138/1936, certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of the treasury board, approved by His Excellency the Governor General in council on the 19th March, 1941. This is an order in council that provided that the soldier settlement board should collect its pound of flesh from the family of the veteran, even though he was overseas and fighting in the second world war. Under the heading "Soldier Settlement" the order in council reads as follows:
The board has had under consideration a submission of the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Resources reporting that:
Let me state here, Mr. Speaker, that that minister of mines and resources was none other than Hon. T. A. Crerar, who for some time had under his administration the soldier settlement board legislation; and it would appear that he turned that administration over to Mr. Gordon Murchison, the director -I was going to say the dictator. Perhaps if I leave the two word's in, it might be all right. But apparently Mr. Murchison was allowed to go on without any ministerial supervision and to impose his will upon the settlers. The order in council continues:
1. A considerable number of persons who agreed to purchase farms from the soldier settlement board or from the director of soldier settlement on long term contracts have enlisted in the Canadian armed forces.

2.	In many cases the dependents of such enlisted persons continue to occupy their farms but no provision has been made for payment of instalments in respect of their contracts or of taxes in respect of their farms.
3.	The director of soldier settlement has no authority to carry such accounts indefinitely and it is considered desirable to provide for deduction from dependents1' allowances to cover local taxes and interest due.
Accordingly the board recommend that notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in any of the regulations providing for payment of dependents' or marriage allowances in respect of dependents of members of the Canadian armed forces, in all cases where the dependents of an enlisted person continue to occupy the farm for which such person is indebted to the director of soldier settlement and in respect of which the contract terms are not otherwise satisfactorily provided for, there may be deducted from the dependents' or marriage allowance amounts sufficient to provide for payment of taxes levied by the local taxing authority in respect of the property in question and interest accruing annually on indebtedness to the director of soldier settlement, such deductions to be made monthly and in no case to exceed $20 per month except with the consent of the dependents concerned.
That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most shameful pieces of legislation by order in council that has been enacted in a long time. It did not matter whether the wives and children of the veteran who had gone away for the second time had enough to eat or not; the director of soldier settlement, Mr. Gordon Murchison, had to have his interest accounts and his taxes taken care of. As soon as we found out that some suffering had been caused the settlers-because a great deal of suffering was being endured by many veterans all across the country-that was taken care of and done away with.
I might say that since 1937 I have been interested in this matter because right around the neighbourhood where I farmed for many years we had a number of these soldier settlers. I personally know that prices which were twice what they should have been were charged for land, livestock and equipment. In a short time there was a general demand that a clear title be given to all veterans holding land under the soldier settlement board.
In 1937 an organization was set up at Lloydminster that did quite a little work along that line, and later another organization came into existence in the city of Saskatoon, which carried on from there, known as the Soldier Settlers Association of Canada. It did a lot of work. We had several discussions in the house here in connection with their program; and they also caused a petition to be circulated, which was signed by over 12,500 people who could be reached at that time of the year, because the ground

was all covered with snow, travel was practically impossible, and no provision was made for paying the persons who carried those petitions.
The request was also supported by the Alberta legislature, the Saskatchewan legislature, the Alberta Farmers' Union, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section; the United Farmers of Alberta, the Alberta branch of the Canadian Legion, the executive of the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Legion, and many others across the country.
In addition to that we had a brief presented to the veterans committee here in the house on October 26, 1945. Mr. Alex Walker, president of the Canadian Legion at that time, was the spokesman. A part of the brief, under the heading: "Soldier Settlement Act," reads as follows:
A further proposal recommended by this committee relates to the granting of clear titles to aged settlers or to those who had reduced their indebtedness to twenty-five per cent of the original purchase price. A great deal of discussion has been carried on during the past few years respecting soldier settlers of the last war, and strong representations, from time to time, have been made from various sources to solve the problem of these veterans by granting them clear title to their farms. A debate occurred in the House of Commons recently on this subject and many members spoke in favour of the proposal. Representations by soldier settlers through the Legion have followed similar lines, and the following resolution is submitted for the consideration of this committee:
The resolution reads:
Therefore be it resolved that, in order to be fair to our aging veterans and to bring the old and the new settlement acts more into line, the dominion government be asked to readjust the debts of the 6,153 original soldier settlers who have not paid for their lands, such readjustment to take into consideration the difference in interest rates charged under the said acts; and that following such readjustment the government be further asked to cancel the debts of those original soldier settlers whose debt has been, or may hereafter be, reduced to twenty-five per cent of the original purchase price or the reduced purchase price.
In dealing with the interest rates charged, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the old settlers had been charged 3$ per cent instead of 5 per cent or 7 per cent, there would not be a dollar of debt remaining in most of the cases at this time.
After the brief was presented there were questions and answers, as indicated on page 315 of the report for the day on which the brief was presented. We find the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) asking this question:
On page 11 of the brief there is a reference to the old soldier settlers, and the recommendation there is that clear title be given provided a soldier reduces his indebtedness to twenty-five per cent of the original purchase price or the reduced purchase 80709-35 i
Soldier Settlers
price. I do not think that will go far enough to satisfy the organization that calls itself the Old Soldier Settlers Organization, because they are asking for a clear title for all soldier settlers of the last war. I think we must all agree that the soldiers who are in the most difficult position of all are those soldier settlers who have had no chance of reducing their indebtedness to that twenty-five per cent, the ones who have been up against bad luck. Some of you may call it bad management perhaps, but we know that the situation these men went through in the depression years put them in a position where they could not get the money to buy the farm. I should like very much to see that twenty-five per cent taken out of your recommendation, making it wide open so that title can be given to the old soldier settlers, whether in the fortunate position of being able to reduce their indebtedness to twenty-five per cent or not. I wonder if Mr. Walker would comment on that?
And the witness, who was Mr. Walker, said:
I am sure it will not hurt our feelings if you do give them clear title.
That was the president of the Canadian Legion, speaking for that organization.
Coming back to the soldier settlement organization, we had them here on the 17th of June, 1948, and they presented their final brief on that day. The committee did not consider the brief on that day, but at a subsequent meeting they did consider it, and this is the report that they presented to the house later on, under the heading:	"Soldier
Settlement Act":
Your committee recommends that all indebtedness of soldier settlers under the provisions of the Soldier Settlement Act, 1918. be remitted, and that they may be granted clear title to their holdings.
That was the position taken by the veterans committee, one of the best committees that was ever set up in this house. There were representatives of all parties on that committee. They did not get down to the tactics that perhaps some of the other committees had been using, namely, trying to get political advantage in that committee. Therefore we should at least take notice of the veterans committee of the house and the brief presented by the Canadian Legion.
Some causes of failure of the settlers may be enumerated. We find that many of them were unsuited for farming, and might be classed as square pegs in round holes. Had they been placed in some other walk of life they would have come out very well. We know that in the house we have square pegs in round holes also; and yet people must be fitted to some line of work which they are able to do. Moreover, land, livestock and implements were purchased at inflated prices. Land was purchased in some instances in dry areas or in areas subject to frost and hail. The prices of agricultural products, as I have already said, went to low levels; in the case of wheat, running anywhere from $3

Soldier Settlers
down to $0.20 a bushel, and the price of other commodities in line with that. Then the interest rates ran from five to seven per cent a year. They became too high. That put a number of these men in difficulties and kept them there, because after paying five per cent or seven per cent interest on arrears, which took a large part of their profit, they found that they were still no further ahead than they were one year prior to that time.
We have made loans to other countries sometimes interest free, and sometimes at as low as two per cent; only this afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) told us about this country giving a grant of $25 million to support the Colombo plan during the first year of operation. It might be well if some of these things were given to take care of our veterans at home.
Titles should be granted because the scheme, as it was admitted by Mr. Crerar, who was minister of mines and resources at the time, was hastily improvised and put into operation or administered by people who had no previous experience. It was intended as a rehabilitation scheme to fit many of the veterans. It has turned out to be a scheme of persecution.
The average age of the settlers at the present time runs over sixty years. Some of these veterans are now nearly ninety, and if they have not been able to pay off their debts up to the present time, how in the world does the government expect them to pay off their debts in the future? Those who have paid off or will pay off in the future have been denying themselves many of the comforts of life. They have been living in shacks that are not good enough, certainly for our veterans, and they have been denying themselves the advantage of medical, dental, hospital and other care, to which they are justly entitled.
In some instances the old settlers went overseas-sent their sons or took them with them. Many of them, as I said before, went to the munitions factories and continued to help out there.
Lastly, while the settlers were bound by contract to pay back a certain amount in return for their land, no provision whatever was made for keeping the prices of their products up to the point at which they should have been kept. That was the faulty agricultural policy pursued by the government.
While there have been many discussions of this matter in the house, the only effective objection I have ever heard is that if the veterans of great war I are given clear title, then the veterans of great war II will demand

the same treatment. I do not think that objection is a sound one, and I shall deal with it later.
In 1949 there were 911 settlers who paid in $697,921.98. During that calendar year there were 692 reductions, amounting in all to $269,311.95. In 1950 we note quite a reduction in the number of settlers whose accounts were fully paid up; it dropped from 911 in 1949 to 362 in 1950. The 362 paid in $410,233.76. In 1950 there were 226 reductions made, as compared with the 692 of the previous year; and those 226 reductions amounted to $106,386.34. This amount includes 25 reductions amounting to $13,493.22, authorized before January 21, 1950, which might properly have been included in the 1949 figure.
The average debt of the settlers on January 1, 1950, was $1,125.03, whereas the average debt on January 1, 1951, was $1,122.73. Last year's estimates made provision for the sum of $150,000 to reduce this debt still further. We find that up until the end of December $106,386 had been spent; that would be during'the first nine months of the last fiscal year. On January 1 of this year there were 1,272 of these settlers who were still in debt.
The total debt as of January 1, 1951 amounted to $1,428,069.42. Looking back we remember that the daily cost of fighting the second world war was approximately $16 million. If at this time we were to apply the cost of fighting only two and one-half hours of that war, title could be given to all those old settlers. The over-all cost of world war II now runs to more than $21 billion. The interest on the national debt runs to over $450 million; and while many people say, "Give the old veterans something for nothing", we find in this interest on the debt a good example of something for nothing, because much of that debt on which we are paying interest is nothing more than figures in bankers' books. We feel it should not be in that position.
There are fourteen million people in Canada. With the debt of these old settlers standing at $1,428,069.42 we realize that if every individual in Canada paid one dime, one ten-cent piece, the price of a chocolate bar, in addition to his or her other taxes-which, I realize, will be heavy enough-this debt could) be wiped out altogether.
In conclusion, let me say that Canada is the best country in the world, and I fear no successful contradiction' of that statement. I believe this country has provided a great deal for the veterans who returned from the second world war; and credit for that cannot

be claimed by any one political party, because we know that parties on all sides of the house worked together to bring about good deals for the returned men. I do not believe the treatment they are getting in that respect is any more than they should be getting. They offered everything they had in order to win the war; and they did win it, gloriously.
We should see that those old veterans who settled on the land after the first great war should be given simple justice, even at this late date. Last year's frozen crops were enough to discourage many farmers, even those who are in good financial standing. But what is the effect upon those old veterans when they look at their pile of debt? Let us not forget that they owe money to people other than the soldier settlement board. Their crops in many instances are lying under the snow today, and it remains to 'be seen whether they will reap any benefit from those crops.
They have been paying on their land for the past thirty-one years and have denied themselves and their families much needed medical attention. In many cases their machinery is worn out, and their buildings are badly depreciated. They are faced with excessive costs of the things they have to buy, and diminishing returns for the things they have to sell. Perhaps, if conditions do not change, in the very near future, we may need1 the help of those men and their families again to provide food and munitions of war for Canadians and for people overseas. Today we should make them happy and give them title to their lands, because it may be later than you think. I hope it will not be necessary for me to discuss this matter again. I wish to pay tribute to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), the former minister of veterans affairs, who has been most sympathetic and helpful. I pay tribute also to the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch), his parliamentary assistant, who, too, has been helpful, and who was one of the first members on the government side of the house to come out openly in support of clear titles as a matter of good business, not just from a sympathetic standpoint. I have not yet had any dealings in connection with this matter with the new Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) but I look forward to sympathetic treatment from him of those soldier settlers of the first great war.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker,
the subject under discussion this afternoon is not a new one. As the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) has said, it has been before the house on many occasions.
Soldier Settlers
This resolution, innocent in appearance, reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of giving clear titles to all soldier settlers of great war I who hold land under contract with the soldier settlement board.
This resolution simply asks the government to take into consideration the advisability of taking action, and I am satisfied that it will have the support of all members in the house, no matter where they sit. I commend and congratulate the hon. member who has just taken his seat upon his consistency in bringing this matter to the attention of the house over a long period of years. He deserves credit not only from members of the house but more particularly from those whose cause he has been pleading.
I have also spoken in the matter. As every veteran in the house knows, the matter has been before the veterans committee on numerous occasions, and has been recommended by the Canadian Legion to that committee. The history of the matter has been pretty thoroughly covered. The hon. member who introduced the resolution has placed statistics on record and has summed up the situation over the last thirty years, since the inception of the act.
Those of us who served in the first great war will remember the time when the young men came back from overseas in 1918 and 1919. These young men came back with high hopes. The hon. member cited the promise made to them by the then prime minister of Canada, and of course they had reason to believe that they would be well looked after. In 1919, when the act first came into force, 25,000 men took up land under the Soldier Settlement Act. At that time the amount involved was in the vicinity of $110 million. That was to be the cost to the 25,000 soldiers.
We find that in 1951 the figure of 25,000 soldiers, who owed for their farms at that time, has been reduced to 1,272 according to a return brought down the other day. Practically all these men have paid for their farms, and of the remaining 1,272 some of them have paid most of their indebtedness. At the present time the amount owed by these men is only $1,428,000. I am sure that all hon. members will agree that is a very small sum indeed when we consider the millions and billions of dollars this country has to pay in a year in order to carry on our services. From 1919 to 1951 these men have indeed had a long, long trail to travel. It has been a hard and stony road. I think we could very well give every consideration tr

Soldier Settlers
the resolution, and I hope that when the minister speaks he will be able to tell the house that there will be an item in the estimates this year to deal with this matter.
As I said a moment ago, most of these men have paid for their farms over the years, and I think those who have not paid have in many cases had good reason for not paying. They were handicapped in many ways. Many of them had poor farms to start with. I think that is a fact, and it is not surprising because out of 25,000 farms there is every reason to expect that some of them would be poor and would be farms on which a man could not make a living. Besides poor farms these men had hard luck. They took up farming almost at the very worst time in the history of this country. They were farming during the poor years of the twenties, during the depression of the thirties, and after that another war commenced. Therefore they did not have a fair opportunity to pay for their farms. Some of these men had large families and found it most difficult, as the hon. member who has just taken his seat said, to look after their families during hard times.
They paid high prices not only for their farms but also for their stock and machinery. The price of stock at that time might not compare with the price of cattle today but $100 or $150 for a cow in 1919 or 1920 was a very high price for those times, and many of these men had to pay such prices. They also had to pay a high price for their farm machinery. In the second great war the government had the benefit of their experience with these men, and I think that was worth a great deal not only to the Department of Veterans Affairs but also to the government generally. They might very well take that factor into consideration when a request is made for the cancelling of the debts on these farms.
We might say that the men of the first war were more or less guinea pigs so far as these farms were concerned, and that in the second great war the experience which the government had gained was of most valuable assistance and no doubt saved the people of Canada many millions of dollars. Again, it was difficult for these men to sell at times when the prices of farm products were at their peak. In my own province many of these men were potato farmers. The agent of the soldier settlement board would come around and say: You must sell your potatoes now. You owe the department so much money. The man would say:	If you will
allow me to sell in a month or two months' time I will be able to sell at a better price than if I sell now. But the agent was doing

his duty. He was always anxious to see that the men paid when payment was due. Therefore in many cases men were forced to sell their potatoes, pigs, apples, or whatever it was, at a time when they could not get the best market price.
The hon. member said that these men have made other contributions besides the payments they have made. As I mentioned before, most of them were men who raised large families. In the second great war sons and daughters of these returned soldiers went overseas to serve. Hundreds of these men served in the veterans guard or in some other branch of the services during world war II. Taking all these matters into consideration, here we have men who have worked on these farms for over thirty years. Today they are between sixty and seventy-five years of age. At this time, when it is practically impossible for them to work on account of their age and it is becoming practically impossible for them to pay for their farms, they are asking the government to give them title so that in their old age they may at least be able to say that they own the land on which they have reared their families and on which they have lived for so long.
I do not think that such action would establish a precedent so far as world war II veterans are concerned. We all know that the veterans of the second world war received about one-third or 33 per cent equity in their land to start with. We also know that, instead of paying 5 per cent as was paid by the veterans of the first world war, they are only paying 3i per cent. I might add, as has already been stated, that in 1942, I believe it was, the interest rate was reduced from 5 per cent to 3J per cent for veterans who had joined the veterans guard or some other branch of the services, and for those who had not gone overseas it was made 3| per cent in 1944.
In changing this contract or agreement, as I say we would not be establishing a precedent. Already that contract has been changed several times, first in regard to the rate of interest and then in the matter of reductions. Several substantial reductions have been made at various times, and I believe the former minister and his predecessor deserve a great deal of credit in that connection. A precedent was also established in regard to the time these men were given in which to pay for their farms. At first it was twenty-five years; then along about 1945 that period was extended for another twenty years, making forty-five years in all. So we have several precedents for making changes in these agreements, and no objection could be taken if we made another change.

I am not going to make any extended remarks on this subject, but it does seem to me that after all these years, considering the men with whom we are dealing, considering the toil, suffering and hard work they have put in, it would not be becoming on the part of the government to stick to logic and statistics. There is always a time when we should let a little sentiment enter into our considerations, and I think this is that time. We have an opportunity to make those old men very happy. I am sure we will not only make the veterans who own these farms happy; we will also make the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) very happy. For fifteen years he has been fighting this cause, and I would like to see him win. He has been a great fighter, and the soldiers owe him a great debt.
I do not think we would lose so much as far as money is concerned. I remember that a few years ago some hon. member figured out what it cost to carry on debates here in the House of Commons, and it ran to thousands of dollars a day. If we could turn into money the time that has been taken by the hon. member for Battle River and the rest of us in discussing this matter, I am sure it would amount to a very substantial portion of this indebtedness. There is also the cost of administration. I know the soldier settlement board is no longer in existence and that this matter is administered under the Veterans Land Act, but even so I am quite satisfied that it costs a good deal of money each year to administer the land held by these soldier settlers. Taking all these things into consideration I am quite sure it would take only a few years to make up this whole amount, if today, or as soon as it could be done, we gave these men clear title to the land on which they live. The amount involved is only $1,428,000. A few years ago I remember hearing a minister ask, "Why, what is a million dollars?" With the billions of dollars being expended by this country every year; with the hundreds of millions it takes to carry on even our ordinary services, a million dollars is a very small amount indeed.
Without discussing the matter further, I feel that a very strong case has been made out for these veterans of the first war who are on these farms. I believe this resolution should have the support and commendation of all hon. members, and I am sure that people from one end of Canada to the other, whether veterans or not, will feel that we are only giving simple justice to a body of men who have deserved it for a long period of years.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will not take quite as long
Soldier Settlers
as the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), since we have heard how much it costs when we speak in this house. I would rather have my money go toward paying off one of these mortgages. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair).
I sincerely hope the rest of his party will not be here as long as I am going to be here, but if he does not win out this year I hope he comes back to continue the fight. On behalf of every soldier settler in my riding, and I think every veteran, I congratulate him on the stand he has taken and wish him success.
There are only 1,272 veterans concerned in this, so I do not think anyone can accuse any hon. member of speaking from a political angle. If you scatter 1,272 veterans across the ten provinces of Canada I am sure their vote would not affect any hon. member. But there is such a thing as justice tempered with mercy, and I believe this is the place for it. The only argument I have heard against this proposal is that it would be unfair to those who have paid for their land. Well, I can say with all sincerity that no soldier settler in my riding who has paid his debt will begrudge these men anything they get, nor do I think any veteran in Canada will begrudge them anything.
I do not want to be controversial, but the other day I heard an hon. member mention the amount of money that had been written off in income tax for some large corporations. It would take very little of that to wipe out this amount. I know of one contractor in the province of British Columbia who told me after world war II that he did not have any cash in the bank, that all he had made out of his contracts for building airports was half a million dollars worth of machinery.
I would settle for a little less than half a million dollars profit on a few contracts; and if we could afford to give that fellow that much I believe we can afford to wipe out this indebtedness. I repeat that I do not believe any veteran in Canada who has paid his account in full will object in the" least if these few old men have their homes given to them. As has been pointed out by the two previous speakers, these men are well on in years now. It would have been a different proposition ten or twelve years ago, and surely we should take that into account.
I have been on the veterans affairs committee since coming here, along with the two previous speakers. I believe every member of that committee was in favour of this action. I cannot understand any hon. member, irrespective of his party, and particularly if he is a returned soldier, not being in favour of it. This resolution merely requests the

Soldier Settlers
government to consider taking this step, and I particularly ask the returned men in this house to vote in favour of it, in order to impress upon the government that we think they could well afford to take this action. As I said the other day in connection with veterans' pensions, I do not believe the people of Canada will object to any tax imposed either to win the war or to see that those who did win the war are properly cared for. I do not believe any taxpayer in Canada would object to any tax necessary to raise a million and a half for a cause such as this.
I am not referring to anyone in close proximity to me, but I should like to congratulate the Department of Veterans Affairs on the way it is handling the Veterans Land Act at the present time. I have never heard any great complaint, within my riding at least, and I believe the officials in British Columbia are doing an excellent job. There are one or two exceptions to that statement, but they are here in Ottawa, this great town where they gild the crows and hang windmills. I could tell them a suitable place to hang those windmills, if they would take my advice.
An order was issued in Ottawa which might be of importance, in view of what has happened in Alberta in the last couple of years. They have discovered oil out there, even if they have not discovered suitable material to represent them at Ottawa. Now, when a veterans pays off his land, if he is fortunate enough to be able to do so, he is handed a beautiful epistle to the effect that if he will deposit $25 the department will have a search made of the title to see if they took title to the mineral and oil rights- mark that, they will have a search made, and if they have taken title to them, they will reconvey those rights .to the veteran. The veteran has, however, to deposit this $25 cheque-


Mr. Wylie:: That is silly; you do not believe that, do you?


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member will have an opportunity of attempting to emulate my great example when I have completed my speech. In the province of British Columbia it only costs 50 cents to search a title. This Ottawa department requests the veteran to deposit $25 in order that they can make a search, and then transfer the title. I had the privilege of selling some land last year. I did not get as much money as I should have, but I got more than it was worth. It did not cost me $25 to transfer the title. Many veterans could not deposit that amount. I am sure every official here could throw out $25 and not notice it. It would mean he would stay home from Madame 
Burger's one night and not attend the next hockey game, but there are many veterans who are striving to bring up a family who cannot lay out this- $25 in order to protect their mineral rights.
I do not want to take up as much time as the member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), because I want that money to go to the veterans. I am appealing to my colleagues from British Columbia, whether or not they are veterans, to support this resolution. I cannot understand why the support of such a resolution is regarded as an attack upon your own party or the government. That is all poppycock. It is merely suggesting to the government what is right. I know that we have a perfect government because it is sitting on this side of the house, but I also realize it would be a finer administration if it paid more attention to my advice. I see no reason why I should not advise the government. If we can take up time talking about holidays, Victoria day-


An hon. Member:: And pipe lines.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, and you will hear more about pipe lines, because if the pipe lines go through Canada the veterans will be able to pay off their debts and lend money to Ottawa. I do not think any member in this house, particularly a veteran, should hesitate to support this resolution. Generally it is the Scotch people who contribute most to this house and to Canada as a whole, but on this occasion we are being led by an Irishman. I hope he continues to be a fighting Irishman, and I hope he is successful.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution sponsored by the member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of giving clear titles to all soldier settlers of great war I who hold land under contract with the soldier settlement board.
It is rather difficult to say something about this subject that is not a repetition of what other members have said. This is not a political matter. Everyone has sympathy for the soldier settlers. I should like to pay tribute to the member for Battle River for his persistence in bringing this subject to the attention of the house year after year, and to the progress that he has made in getting some concessions. I believe it was in 1948 that a similar resolution was considered by the war veterans committee and recommended to the house. The veterans committee recommended that the soldiers be given clear title. This government did not grant that request but did go some distance towards

it at that time. I believe a lot of the credit for that should go to the member for Battle River.
I do not rise at this time merely because I belong to the Legion or because I am an oldi soldier; I rise as a Canadian. Most of these settlers went farming just about the same time as I did, in 1920. I know the hardships I encountered, and I suppose they met some of those hardships too. Perhaps they were less able to stand the knocks than I have been. We started out with wheat at $2.50, and everything that you touched or thought about was based on $2.50 wheat. If you bought a team of horses, they were based on the price of wheat. If you bought a farm, it was based on the price of wheat. Within two years the cows for which we paid $150 each were worth about $25 each. The member for Battle River referred to the price of a team of horses as $500. In about two years' time you could not get $100 for them. Those things all worked hardship on the soldier settler. The machinery he had to buy was high priced. He did not pay cash for that machinery, but he bought it on time. He bought his horses and everything else on time. He had to pay through the nose for those things during the remaining years.
Some remarks have been passed to the effect that the settlers who have been more fortunate, and who have paid their indebtedness to the board, would object if effect were given to this resolution. I do not think they would;. Nobody would object to this. Most of these men are sixty or over, and they have helped build Canada. Many of them gave their sons in the second world war, and no doubt if they struggle along a while longer they will see their grandsons going away to another war. I want to assure the government that every member in this group is behind this resolution. We appeal to the government to give these soldier settlers a clear title. They deserve it. They have paid for it. The greater portion of what they owe today is compound interest at seven per cent. That was a terrible toll on a man struggling for existence, especially in the thirties, when he started out on the basis of $2.50 wheat only to find that wheat dropped to 35 cents a bushel, barley to 15 cents, and oats to 5 cents. These men were the victims of circumstances. I again appeal to the government to give them clear title, and let them hold their heads high for the few remaining years in which they will be here.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I
shall be brief. On other occasions I have spoken in support of this resolution. In common with other members, I want to congratulate the member for Battle River (Mr. Soldier Settlers
Fair) who has continued this fight on behalf of our less fortunate comrades. As has been pointed out, there were about 25,000 settlers under the original act. This indebtedness has been cut down to the sum of $1,400,000. Surely, some thirty years later if we see fit to recommend to the government this course of action, then they should see fit to grant clear titles to these men.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce). Some of these settlers were not as fortunate in the type of land on which they settled as he was. I know of one settler who was settled on a very poor half section. He had agreed to pay about $17 an acre, in all about $5,500. Through no fault of his own, in the hungry and difficult thirties, he was advised by the inspector to sign a quit-claim deed. This he did. This fellow was rather a livestock man and he wanted to buy the same farm for pasture purposes. Owing to the regulations the board refused to sell this farm back to the same settler who had signed the quitclaim deed. On the other hand, they sold this half section to a speculator, who is not even a British subject, for less than $1 an acre. That is a concrete example of something that happened during that time under the soldier settlement board. When I think of things like that, I cannot understand why they should be niggardly or sticking with regard to granting free titles to these people who have spent the greater part of their lives on these farms.
I also want to endorse what the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) has said about this matter of oil or the mineral rights to properties. I had a somewhat similar case brought to my attention the other day. It is true enough that you can make a search in the titles office for fifty cents. But I had a letter back stating that they could not give me the information I wanted and that I would have to have a proper legal search made. That is the point which my good friend the hon. member for Fraser Valley was covering. You require to put up $25 for a legal search. I have knowledge of far worse cases than that. I will admit it is a matter of red tape. I am not blaming the present Veterans Land Act administration for it. But not all the oil in Canada is located in Alberta. Oil has been struck to some extent at least in Manitoba just west of Virden. The irony of the situation is that this oil has been struck on the property of a veteran of the last war, by the name of Rogers. He was overseas during the last war and while he was away his father purchased for him a farm on which the government retained the mineral rights or the oil
5S4

Soldier Settlers
rights. Because the young lad did not purchase it through the V.L.A. administration, he is not now able to obtain these oil rights on the property on which they have struck oil. As I say, I realize that it is a matter of red tape through the V.L.A. But if a man can prove that he has rendered service the same as any man who has gone through V.L.A. and has purchased his property, surely he should be granted the oil rights to the piece of property. I think that is only fair and just. I think this is a case of great hardship. The father is not a wealthy man, but he was able to pay for the property and to have it ready for his young son who was being married to go to and settle on when he came back. Why that one man right there should be debarred from getting the mineral rights I do not know, when the other fellow right alongside of him-whose father might have been worth several times as much money but who did not see fit to purchase the property to start the young man on-because he goes through the V.L.A., is then able to obtain these rights.
I just wish to point this matter out to the board and I hope they are able to do something about it, because I think it is rather unjust that he should be treated in this way. This young fellow feels terribly upset about the matter. Certainly he could have refused to take advantage of what his father had done to assist him, could have gone through the V.L.A., and then had the rights. Now these people have struck oil and he is not able to obtain the rights.
Without repeating the lengthy arguments which I have put on the record in past sessions, I just want to endorse all that has been said here today and to express the hope that hon. members on all sides of the house will allow this matter to come to a vote and will vote unanimously to grant these titles at this time. As has been well said here, I am sure there is not any settler I know of who has paid for his property and obtained title to it who will feel aggrieved or in any way put out because these titles are being granted at this time to their less fortunate comrades. I hope that all members of the house will see the matter in this light.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks are going to be quite brief because I certainly want this matter to come to a vote; but I felt that I had to say something in support of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair). I should like to compliment him, along with other hon. members, on the manner in which he has kept this matter particularly before the house. I think I probably have a closer
FMr. Ross (Souris).]
personal relationship with this matter of soldier settlement board lands than has any other member of the house, because I purchased land under the soldier settlement board and spent some twenty years in Saskatchewan in paying for that land.
In the district in which I live I think there was probably the largest concentration of soldier settlers to be found in any part of Canada, men who were settled there after the last war. Some members have mentioned the conditions under which they were settled there. I remember quite well the Winnipeg strike being on in the latter part of 1919, and trainloads of soldiers being sent out from the city of Winnipeg to the area in which 1 settled, being taken down and shown certain areas of land there, in order to try to get them away from Winnipeg just for a week or ten days until the trouble there was over. Many of these young men took land in that area, although they had no farming experience. But promises were made to them; offers were made to them; and they accepted those offers. But in a short time they found that conditions were such that they just could not fulfil their commitments under the act. As to the small numbers that are left today -some 1,272 settlers-I know that in my own area they are cases of hardship, in practically every instance: there has been a large family, there has been sickness or accident, or there has been some definite reason why the contract has not been fulfilled or the farm paid for before now. It has not been a case of neglect. It has not been a case of carelessness on the part of many of these men who are left there. It has been a case of something over which they have had no control themselves, in almost every instance.
In cases like that, where this number has been reduced to the point at which it stands today, and where the amount represented is only some $1,428,000, I think that we could well consider wiping these debts out now and getting it over with. I think the government would be well advised to do that. It was the opinion of the veterans affairs committee several years ago that we should have done this, but the government did not see fit to adopt that policy. They adopted the policy of dealing with individual cases, and they have been doing a reasonably good job. But in dealing with individual cases, it costs money, it takes time, and there is always the personal angle which comes into it, where the supervisor may like or dislike a particular person; and we find hardship being created where it should not be created. I think that we should give consideration now to this suggestion and I am sure all members of the house would be willing to do so. I see the hon. member for

Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) in his place with a great many books on his desk. I hope that he will not use all those records he has around him there for the purpose of talking out this resolution. I hope he will support it. I hope that the vote will be taken and that the government will accept the vote when it is taken; because I am sure if it is taken the majority will vote in favour of the resolution. I hope that the government will take action on it and cancel these few remaining debts.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence on duty of my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe), and with the approval of his parliamentary assistant, in spite of the books that are on his table, I should like to say just a few words before this matter comes to a vote. I ask that permission because of the fact that the plan for carrying out what my friend the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) wants done originated I think with me in 1948 when I was Minister of Veterans Affairs. To be perfectly truthful, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Battle River will permit me to change a few words in his resolution, I will vote with him wholeheartedly.
His resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability-
These are pretty weak words. I continue: -of giving clear titles to all soldier settlers of great war I who hold land under contract with the soldier settlement board.
If my hon. friend will permit me to amend the resolution to read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should continue its program of giving clear titles to all soldier settlers of great war I who hold land under contract with the soldier settlement board,
I will go along with him, because that is exactly what we are doing. It is just a matter of time till it is completed, and not so very much time. This plan of orderly, steady liquidation of these contracts began in 1948. There was an item of $150,000 put in the estimates at that time, which was all used. The next year the same amount and the following year the same amount; I am hoping -I cannot of course review what my colleague, the present minister, has done-I am hoping that he is going on from there.
This afternoon I have listened very carefully to the excellent speeches that have been made, and like others I want to congratulate the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) on his persistence in this matter, because I know he is sincere about it. But I listened carefully to hear if there had been 80709-361
Soldier Settlers
any specific cases of favouritism or of inequity in the administration of the amount which was set aside for the liquidation of these contracts. I have not heard of a single one.
Statements have been made, and I agree with them wholeheartedly, that it has been a long time, the burdens have been heavy, and these men are now pretty old men. They are about the age of my hon. friend and myself, and they are still struggling with these contracts.
I think the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) did bring up a point which is impoi>
tant, namely, the contracts are not the same today, not one of them, as they were back in 1920 and 1921. They have been arranged, rearranged, amended and improved, and now they are being gradually cleaned out in an orderly fashion.
I am delighted to know that the amount is now around only $1 million. I am sure it will not take very long for the thing that my hon. friend wishes to do to be accomplished. However, in the meantime, in the absence of my colleague, I cannot, as far as I am concerned, in speaking on his behalf and for the government, undertake to do it at one fell swoop this year, which I believe is the desire of my hon. friend. Consequently, I wanted to explain why I would have to vote against his wording of the resolution, which means about the same as mine, except for the time factor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready
for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James Arthur Ross: I was paired with the right hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Anderson
Applewhaite
Arsenault
Ashbourne
Bater
Beaudoin
Benidickson
Bennett
Black (Chateauguay-
Huntingdon-Laprairie) Blanchette Boisvert Boivin Bonnier Boucher Bourget Bradette Breithaupt Brisson Bruneau Byrne Cameron Campney Cannon Carroll Carter Cavers Chevrier Clark Claxton Cleaver Cloutier Corry
Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Cote (Verdun-La Salle)
Cournoyer
Crestohl
Decore
Denis
Dewar
Dion
Dube
Dupuis
Eudes
Eyre
Ferrie
Follwell .
Fournier (Hull)
Fulford
Garland
Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Gauthier (Lapointe)
Gauthier (Portneuf)
Gauthier (Sudbury)
George
Gibson
Gingras
Gosselin
Gour (Russell)
Gregg
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Harrison
Healy
Hellyer
Helme
Henderson
Henry
Hetland
Huffman
Hunter

James
Jeffery
Jutras
Kickham
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Lafontaine
Laing
Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge)
Langlois (Gaspe)
Larson
Leduc
Lefrancois
Leger
Lesage
Little
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
MacDougall
MacKenzie
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) MacNaught Macnaughton McCann McCubbin . McCulloch McCusker
McDonald (Parry Sound-Muskoka)
Mcllraith
Mclvor
McLean (Huron-Perth)
McMillan
McWilliam
Major
Maltais
Martin
Masse
Monette
Murray (Cariboo)
Murray (Oxford)
Nixon
Pearson
Pinard
Proudfoot
Prudham
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Riley
Robertson
Robinson
Rooney
Ross (Hamilton East) Rousseau St. Laurent Sinnott
Smith (Queens-Shelburne)
Smith (York North)
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Studer
Tremblay
Warren
Weaver
Whiteside
Whitman
Winkler
Winters-133.



BRIDGES


Mr. Roch Pinard (Chambly-Rouville) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into early consideration the advisability of abolishing the tolls imposed and collected on the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges over the St. Lawrence river.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I hope that this motion will not meet the fate of the one that has preceded it. It has been presented to the house on numerous occasions. In fact it was introduced for the first time in 1946, and has appeared on the order paper every year since. In view of the fact that most of the members who may have a greater interest in the motion are from the district of Montreal, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), who is at present in his seat, is also, like the majority in the district of Montreal, of French origin, I am going to deliver my remarks in French.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, this resolution has appeared many times on the order paper. It does however command the interest of the people I have the honour to represent in the house, and should likewise interest people in all the constituencies on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, and even those of all the ridings of Montreal and of neighbouring towns.
As I indicated just now, I first introduced this motion in 1946, and since then it has appeared each year in my name on the order paper.
This proves that one has to be patient, because the government is not always hasty in relieving evils brought to its attention.
I very sincerely congratulate the new member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis) who, a few days ago, in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, praised and commended me for having introduced this notice of motion in the house.
I thank him for his interest in this matter. The problem concerns him perhaps more than any other member for the district of Montreal.

When I heard him say in his maiden speech in this house that he was a keen and true Liberal I understood that since he also supported the motion I had the honour to introduce, he wished in this way to associate himself with those keen Liberals: my colleagues from Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cournoyer) and from St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Alcide Cote). He thus displayed his great devotion and I am sure that he will display it again during the course of his parliamentary career.
I do not intend to speak very long. I already have had the opportunity of introducing this motion and of dealing with it in this house.
As I have already said, this matter comes under both provincial and federal jurisdiction. I would not hold it as a heresy against constitutional law to state that anything concerning roads and their extension, that is to say, bridges, comes under the provincial authorities.
Besides, I am sure that, after what happened recently in Three Rivers, the provincial government realized that the matter was within the realm of their jurisdiction. In this case, however, the federal government certainly has its say, since the two bridges concerned are its property and are operated by its agencies: Jacques Cartier bridge by the national harbours board, and Victoria bridge by the Canadian National Railways.
In moving this resolution, I call upon the house to express the view that the toll should be abolished on these two bridges. I held that view in 1945, I held it before I was elected to the house and I still hold it.
I believe that this toll system is discriminatory. It should be abolished because it requires from one group sacrifices which other groups are not called upon to make. In this case, the tolls on Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges are detrimental to the whole district on the south shore of the St. Lawrence.
I do not intend to recall one by one the arguments that were brought up, especially in 1947, at the time I discussed the matter. I feel, however, everyone will agree that once a bridge has produced enough to pay its cost the toll should in principle be abolished.
As far as Victoria bridge is concerned, well-informed people know that it was
Tolls on Quebec bridges erected at the turn of the century, with dominion grants. It has always been a toll bridge. It has produced such revenues that it must surely be completely paid for. We also know that the cost of the motor traffic lanes did not exceed $200,000. I was told, on several occasions, that the yearly income derived from the bridge exceeds that amount.
The situation is more difficult as regards Jacques Cartier bridge. It was built in 1930 and was paid for by means of a public loan in the amount of $20 million. At the time the bridge was erected, the interest rate on that loan was' 5 per cent. Therefore the interest charges alone entailed for the nation and the national harbours board, responsible for its administration, an expenditure of over $1 million per year.
It can therefore rightly be claimed, if the interest is taken into account, that Jacques Cartier bridge has, until now, entailed deficits rather than surpluses. Fortunately, and for this I must congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), the interest rate was reduced recently when the loan was financed anew on November 1, 1949. I found official confirmation of this information in the annual report of the national harbours board for 1949, from which I quote the following excerpt:
On November 1, 1949, a $19 million bond issue bearing interest at 5 per cent due to mature on November 1, 1969, and put out to cover the cost of building this bridge was recalled, in accordance with the terms of issue, at 105 plus accrued interest. As these bonds could optionally be refunded in United States dollars, steps relating to their withdrawal were taken at the time a Canadian government bond issue went on sale in New York around September 1, 1949.
The Department of Finance advanced the necessary New York funds to the board and the resultant debt was converted into 21 per cent bonds payable in Canadian currency and worth $20,049,750.
I will not read the following lines, for they are of no particular interest at this time.
As a result of the favourable refinancing of the bridge's capital debt, annual interest charges will be reduced by approximately $445,000, interest, exchange (at current rates) and amortization of repurchase costs being taken into account. This reduction of interest charges will enable the bridge to cover its expenses for the first time since its construction.
Therefore, the re-financing of the debt carried out in 1949 had the effect of reducing interest charges by about $500,000 a year. Accordingly, the bridge having probably produced the same revenue, since traffic increases
SS8	HOUSE OF
Toils on Quebec bridges every year, it can be surmised that, tor the first time, the Jacques Cartier bridge surely ended up with a surplus in 1950.
I would have liked to provide the house with official data but the official report has not yet been issued to the general public. Still I believe I may safely state that this year the Jacques Cartier bridge has produced a large surplus.
As far as Victoria bridge is concerned, I have already explained that for a great many years now it has been accumulating surpluses. This, to my mind,. means that these two bridges bring in more than they cost and that there is no more reason to continue to levy tolls on them.
This state of affairs must be brought to as speedy an end as possible. The Canadian National Railways in particular have no good reason to continue levying surplus-producing tolls on Victoria bridge. There is no reason either why the Jacques Cartier bridge should not be made toll-free.
I stated a while ago that these were matters of joint provincial and federal concern.
Consequently it Is impossible to solve this problem without the co-operation of the two administrations concerned. When I was discussing this matter before the house in 1947, the Minister of Transport gave me to understand that he had approached the provincial government for the purpose of settling this problem, one that cannot be settled without the co-operation of the provincial government.
Under a three-way agreement between the provincial government, the federal government and the city of Montreal, no term of the agreement can be changed without the consent of the three parties involved. The federal government must therefore again approach the provincial government. For that reason I call upon the Minister of Transport to take this matter up again with the provincial authorities and seek final settlement of a problem which is a nightmare for my whole county and all residents of the south shore of the St. Lawrence, who have to use that bridge every day.
In the case of Jacques Cartier bridge, the government met with another difficulty. For years the city of Montreal and the provincial government refused to honour the arrange-
[Mr. Pinard.l

ment by which they had agreed to pay their share of the deficit, provided such share did not exceed the sum of $150,000 per year. These amounts were not paid for a few years. Finally the national harbours board sued the city of Montreal and was recently awarded about $700,000. The case now being under appeal and sub judice, I would rather not discuss it further.
There is another matter which I would like to draw to the attention of the house. In a talk that he gave in Montreal and which I had the pleasure of hearing, the Minister of Transport discussed the St. Lawrence waterway project.
In that talk he held out some hope for all who are interested in the matter when he stated that the Lachine section project of the St. Lawrence seaway would lead to settlement of our problem. In this same talk, whose French text I have here in my hand, the Minister of Transport stated that under the Lachine section project a tunnel for railway traffic was to be built below Victoria bridge. Here are the very words the Minister of Transport used on that occasion as he listed the projects involved in the St. Lawrence seaway and gave all the details of the main project itself. In paragraph 4 of a review of those projects he made the following statement:
The plan provides for the construction on the north shore of one or two locks designed to overcome the difference in level and to make navigation possible from Montreal harbour to and above the new industrial area which is to be established. Thus, the level of lake Saint Louis would extend as far as below Victoria bridge and would provide a maximum fall for power development. One of these plans considers diverting railway traffic from Victoria bridge to a tunnel. Thus, Victoria bridge could be used exclusively for motor vehicles. This would improve markedly transportation on the south shore.
As for the project itself, we can judge the reaction of the American press on the discussions now taking place with regard to the St. Lawrence seaway. The project must be approved by the government of the United States before it may be implemented. It is to be hoped that our neighbours will give their approval this year, because Canada has long been awaiting a favourable reply.
Mr. Charles E. Wilson, former president of General Electric, who has been appointed by the American government director of mobilization, came out strongly for this project.

An American senator also stated that, if Mr. Wilson was in favour of that project, he would express a similar opinion. It seems that many people joined hands in an effort to compel the American government, under the leadership of the President, to favour the project. It therefore seems probable that this project will materialize at last, and the hon. Minister of Transport concluded his talk by a sentence that, with his kind permission, I would make my own:
In the interest of national security and our own economy the joint development of power and navigation facilities on the St. Lawrence should be started at once.
I do not claim that the St. Lawrence waterway project should be proceeded with simply to bring about the abolition of tolls on the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges. But by this greater achievement the less important problem we are confronted with would be settled.
In closing I beg the hon. Minister of Transport to appeal to the authorities concerned in order that such practices, so unfair to tourists, may finally be abandoned. Indeed tourists find it strange to have to pay 25 cents to be allowed to use an old and dangerous bridge perhaps doomed to the same fate as recently befell another bridge. I want to say that that injustice must be corrected. I therefore urge the Minister of Transport, whose energy and talent are known to all of us, to bring pressure to bear on the government of the province of Quebec, which thus far has been reticent about the matter, so that my electors may be treated fairly and that the people of Quebec may no longer have to pay burdensome tolls on those two bridges.


Mr. A. Phileas Cote (Maiapeclia-Maiane):: Mr. Speaker, if I use the French language to speak on this matter, it is because I was not told of this beforehand, and also because, after the brilliant explanation given by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard), I believe I should speak in my native tongue; besides, it is apparently not lucky for me to use the English language, judging from the experience I had on Monday.
My friend from Chambly-Rouville simply asks that people, wherever they come from, may reach the south shore of the St. Lawrence without having to pay for the privilege. That is right. Naturally Montreal is on the north shore and Arvida also. I can
Tolls on Quebec bridges understand you, Mr. Speaker, preferring it to be that way. But there is an important thing. Those who come from the states, as we say, going through Montreal, and who like to go as far as Riviere-du-Loup, then to Matane, and around the Gaspe peninsula, have to pay a toll to cross the St. Lawrence. Why? Is it because the south shore of the St. Lawrence has become, under a decree issued by my friend the minister, an area of strategical importance. I know that is not his intention. Perhaps if there were only myself, it would be all right; but there are others.
Gaspe is probably the place which the Americans find the most interesting. Why should they be asked an admission fee? Why?
The prime minister of the province of Quebec, Mr. Duplessis, has just announced the discovery of very important mines in the Gaspe peninsula. The Noranda people have already put twelve million dollars into this venture, I am told.
Shall we also have to pay to visit that place? It seems to me unreasonable that we should.
They are turning now to Gaspe because in Abitibi and elsewhere things went wrong. Fortunately, we were assured by Mr. Duplessis and Mr. Gagnon that they would succeed in Gaspe. Praise be to God!
Whether it be Mr. Duplessis, Mr. Onesime
Gagnon or others who develop Gaspe, I take my hat off to them for that district was the first discovered and the last to be recognized.
My friend says people should at least be able to cross the St. Lawrence at Montreal without having to pay. It is because he wants to go to Chambly county. I do the same thing to reach Gaspe, to go to Matane. It is such a rich and beautiful country.
After having thus spoken of the beauty of that district, there is no reason for not visiting that territory where all that wealth has been left, to sleep, alas, for three hundred years. Do not laugh. Go down to Gaspe. Go to Matane, visit the rear concessions, you will see that I am serious.
Thirty years ago they shut the gate; today, Duplessis and others say: Come to Gaspe.
Mr. Speaker, I remember something that happened when I was very young and made me liberal, open-minded. When the Price
560	HOUSE OF
Tolls on Quebec bridges Brothers company erected a fence twenty feet high one had to pay to have it opened. Well, father used to tie Dr. Ross, the Liberal M.P., to his horse so that he might jump over. Those days are gone, thank heaven!
If we still have to buy a ticket at the Jacques Cartier bridge or the other bridge to go to the Gaspe peninsula, I really believe we should not be asked to do so. Going down, you know, there are along the shore very nice places; they have surely contributed in a large measure to the development of Canada.
I shall say nothing of Rimouski, but come down and see for yourselves. If it is true that the proposed scheme will further the development of the district, why put up a fence similar to the one the Price Brothers erected thirty years ago? We are told that it will cost 20 cents, 30 cents or 50 cents; I don't know. But why, I ask you?
It is about time that the government should realize what this means. At all events, let the Quebec government build bridges that will not fall down, so that we may have no fear about crossing the river.


Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion submitted by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard). I wish, from the outset to thank him sincerely not so much for praising me as for trusting my word when I said I was a true Liberal. [DOT]
We are considering a motion concerning the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges. As the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville pointed out, the matter is not new. For many years we have been calling for the abolition of tolls on those two bridges. Quebec has long resolved that in future there would be no more toll bridges in the province.
Mr. Speaker, I have but very few arguments to submit besides those already put forward by the hon. member. May I draw the attention of the house, however, to two other aspects of the matter. The hon. member could have mentioned them but I thank him for having left this at least to me. It is nothing new but just the same I would like to add them myself to the rightful claims he has expressed so strongly in this house. For many years, the city of Montreal and the


province of Quebec have not ceased paying for the deficits resulting from these two bridges, especially Jacques Cartier bridge.
I believe we should draw the line somewhere. I find it quite unfair that Montreal people should still have to put up with this indirect tax while even on the Quebec bridge, which, I believe, comes under the jurisdiction of the same department, it was found advisable, some years ago, to do away with the toll system.
Why should people in and around Montreal pay this tax when the toll system no longer exists anywhere else in the province?
Let us not forget -that when the bridge was built in 1930, the south shore was not as fully developed and settled as it is now.
Especially since the war, villages and even towns have sprung up there in a few months time. And now the south shore residents, on whose behalf the member for Chambly-Rouville and other members from that part of the province have spoken so well, must cross this bridge daily and even several times a day. Those people are therefore paying more than their fair share of taxation.
I think that to promote the development of the south shore, known as greater Montreal, it is time to abolish this indirect taxation which is proving a burden on those who have to pay it.
I would point out once again that the city of Montreal assumed a substantial burden of debt when the three-way agreement was suggested. In my opinion, it would be easy for the hon. minister, during his talks with the Quebec administration, to reach a new agreement. I have no authority to speak on behalf of the provincial government of Quebec, but it should be possible to reach some new agreement, some new deal by which the province of Quebec would pay part of the deficit on the same basis as the city of Montreal.
I do hope that the very justified request submitted by the hon. member from Chambly-Rouville will be well received by the government and that further talks will be held so as to put an end, as the member from Chambly-Rouville stated, to this discrimination.
There are possibly three or four places in this country where tolls are levied on bridges falling under joint federal and provincial jurisdiction. I hope therefore that the

request made to the government by the hon.
member for Chambly-Rouville will be heard and that we may soon rejoice over the decision taken by the government.
A few years ago I was able to have tolls levied on pedestrians abolished. Originally, when the Jacques Cartier bridge was first opened, pedestrians had to pay five cents for the privilege of crossing the bridge. However, thanks to an agreement between the federal government and the Montreal municipal council, on my request and that of a number of other aldermen at the time, this nuisance was removed.
I bank on the well-known public-spiritedness of the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville and other hon. members to obtain from the government the abolition of that extra tax of toll fees on Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges.
I will not refer to Victoria bridge in particular, but the injustice there is still more glaring, for that bridge has been paid many times over.
Removal of toll fees on Jacques Cartier bridge would transfer costs to the whole country, but it would be a very moderate cost considering that the bridge is used not only by the people of Montreal but also by people of nearby communities as well as by the tourists who use it all the time.
Under the circumstances I am sure that the government will give sympathetic consideration to our request.


Mr. Gerard Cournoyer (Richelieu-Ver-cheres):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the resolution moved by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard). May I congratulate him upon his interest in the welfare of the people, not only of his county but also of mine and of the eastern townships generally.
He has given a very good outline of the problem and he has distinguished between the two bridges. For my part, I am more interested in the Victoria bridge.
In connection with the Jacques Cartier oridge, my hon. friend has shown what has happened to the request for the abolition of tolls. Everyone knows that a matter of jurisdiction is involved. Everyone knows that the federal government made representations to the provincial authorities with a view to
Tolls on Quebec bridges having the tolls abolished on Jacques Cartier bridge. Unfortunately, as we also know, these offers brought no reply.
For my part, I can understand Mr. Duplessis, the prime minister of the province of Quebec, not being in a mood to discuss bridges now. That might give him nightmares.
I believe that the position of the federal government, which took upon itself the entire cost of building Jacques Cartier bridge, should be made clear to the public. As stated by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, certain agreements were made between the provincial government and the city of Montreal on the one hand, and the federal government on the other.
It is not the first time that tolls have been done away with on a bridge built by the federal government. I might mention Quebec bridge as an example. Tolls had been levied on that bridge which was built by the federal government. But under an agreement between the federal and provincial governments tolls were abolished at the same time as they were removed on all other bridges in the province of Quebec.
In the light of that precedent where the case was settled to the satisfaction of all concerned, I submit most respectfully that it would be easy, indeed very easy, for the government of my province to negotiate an agreement with the federal authorities.
On the other hand, I believe the dominion government has exclusive jurisdiction over the levying of the tolls.
Over a period of years, there have been important changes in the rates charged the people who use those bridges. I remember the time when motorists did not have the advantage of buying a booklet of tickets; they just paid 25 cents to get across. Today, they can get books of tickets allowing them to cross at low rates.
On the other hand, I feel the present discrimination should be remedied. It does seem that motorists are paying too high a rate for using the bridge. This is especially hard on merchants who have to deliver goods to Montreal. Then there is the case of dairymen who buy their milk from farmers in the constituencies of Chambly-Rouville and Richelieu-Vercheres and also in the eastern townships. They often pay a toll charge of $1 or $1.50 on their tank trucks. If one con-

Tolls on Quebec bridges siders the number of trucks owned by these people, it is easy to realize what this represents in the way of operating costs.
I do not wish to discuss the matter any longer at present. It would be useless to repeat the reasons so ably stated by my learned friends who spoke before me, but I must say that I heartily endorse their recommendations.


Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague the member from Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard) on the brilliant account he has given the house on this matter.
As a member from the eastern townships, it is my duty to state that this motion has my unqualified support. We of the eastern towrn-ships are particularly concerned with this matter, because we are interested in both bridges, although someone has said that we are concerned only with the Jacques Cartier bridge.
That the people on the south shore have long been the victims of such discrimination is quite true. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Coumoyer) stated, a few moments.ago, that tank trucks had to pay toll fees of $1, $1.25 or even $1.50. Let me tell him that he understated the case, for there is in my constituency a co-operative dairy whose tank trucks must pay much more than that for the privilege of crossing that bridge.
Some have mentioned the tourist trade. I really believe that because of the 25 or 40 cents exacted from them, a large number of American tourists cross the bridge leading to Lachine, on their way north, so that they do not come in our district. Ours is a lovely district, yet tolls on Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges prevent tourists from visiting it. That is unfair to us. Many people from Montreal would spend week ends with us if they did not have that 25 cents to pay. Instead they go north, whereas we have, on the south shore, the finest country in Canada. Furthermore it is even more unfair to the tradesmen on the south shore, who have to pay up to $1 or $1.25 to cross the bridge.
I would ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to try to plead with Mr. Duplessis -even though the latter has been stricken with the bridge disease lately-in order to


convince him to remove that toll. I believe that the Minister of Transport's tact would be equal to the task of convincing the three interested parties to settle the matter, in all fairness to those who live on the south shore and in the eastern townships. And so I ask the Minister of Transport to take the matter up with the authorities as soon as possible so that our people and those from the south shore may obtain justice.


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some caution, in my capacity as member for Three Rivers, that I rise to support the very interesting arguments brought forward by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard), and by the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Cote). I feel I must bring my humble support and ask the Minister of Transport to kindly accede to the request made by the member for Chambly-Rouville.
In my opinion, the toll system on those bridges is altogether obsolete; it is a source of injustice and hardship for the residents of the various municipalities who have to use them. The population of the -city of Montreal has not always been what it is now. Today, a large number of people working in Montreal have to cross those bridges, two and even four times a day, so that the money spent on tolls amounts to a tidy sum.
It was said a while ago that this matter came under provincial as well as federal jurisdiction. As regards tolls levied on bridges, I think that the provincial government set a good example long ago, since these are the only two toll bridges left in the province of Quebec. I am sure that if the dominion government approached the provincial government on this matter, the latter would maintain the tradition of removing tolls.
That is why it gives me great pleasure to support the request of the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville.
Tourists have also been mentioned. No doubt most of those who visit our province can easily pay the small sum asked of them to cross these two bridges. But I believe that this is a nuisance rather than a real hardship and that such things give our tourist system a bad name. We know that any time

we ourselves must find change to cross a bridge, we cannot help criticizing this system and the government responsible for it.
I sincerely believe that in taking the first steps, the hon. Minister of Transport would, in general, receive really hearty support from the provincial authorities. Such steps would be useful not only to the people of Montreal but also to all the people of the province of Quebec who have to use those bridges. They would also help promote the tourist trade in the province. Let us not forget that this is one of our most profitable industries.
As the member for Three Rivers, on the north shore, I would like toll fees abolished in order that American tourists motoring to the St. Maurice valley and areas north of Montreal can be rid of this nuisance.
As I said a moment ago, the government's persistence in charging toll fees on a bridge as obsolete as the Victoria bridge is rather ridiculous. On Jacques Cartier bridge, a modern and a very sturdy structure, we at least have something to offer. I do feel that tolls on these two bridges should be abolished, that the federal government should shoulder its responsibilities in this matter, and pay for the upkeep of these bridges out of its own treasury instead of pestering the people of Quebec and the public in general.
Mr. Speaker, I see that there are only five minutes left and I would ask you for permission to call it six o'clock.


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I see that my hon friend is requesting the adjournment of the house although it is not yet six o'clock. As I have only a word to say at this stage, I ask the privilege to support the resolution now under consideration.
Being the representative of a constituency which is affected by this deplorable situation, the people in my constituency would expect me, I know, to join with those who have already voiced an opinion on this matter. I am in favour of abolishing the tolls on Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges. Victoria bridge is the nearest exit for the people of Verdun who wish to cross over to the south shore.
Tolls on Quebec bridges
This matter is very important from both a regional and a national point of view. It is regrettable that, in the most important city of Canada, people should be prevented from coming and going as they wish because of these tolls. There is no reason for it.
I ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and the government to adopt this resolution, for the abolition of those tolls became necessary many years ago, more particularly as far as the toll on Victoria bridge is concerned.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, the house stands adjourned until tomorrow at three o'clock.


Mr. McLure:: Mr. Speaker, you have not put the vote, have you?


Alphonse Fournier: Six o'clock.


Alcide Côté: The question should be put.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to make a few remarks with reference to the resolution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is six o'clock.


Mr. Fleming:: There are a few minutes left.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.



FURTHER ELEMENTS IN BRIGADE GROUP TO JOIN BATTALION OF P.P.C.L.I.

Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement. Yesterday inquiry was received from the unified command of the United Nations forces in Korea as to whether training of the balance of the 25th Canadian Infantry brigade was complete, and if so, could it be sent to form part of the United Nations forces in Korea?
This training is almost complete, and the government agreed today that the other elements in the brigade group should shortly proceed to Korea and join the second battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry there.

Korea


Mr. Green:: Does that mean the second battalion of the Royal Canadian regiment and the Royal 22nd regiment, with supporting troops?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: It does not mean the third battalion?


Brooke Claxton: No, it does not mean the third battalion.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow is still private members' day.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 22. 1951